1870 cc Seated Liberty Dollar

It looks cleaned to me (scratches, toning around only the outside, etc.) There is also a gouge through the 1 & 8. I'm sure all of that affects value.

Big question - Does it look counterfeited? The weight is correct. Let me know if more pics are needed.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Can you post pictures?

 

Yep! I'm going to try to get a better pic of the obverse. Back in a bit. Sorry, I'm not sure why the pics are tilted. I can shrink the file size if that would help.

 

looks harshly cleaned.

 

Cleaned and gouged I can handle b/c there's still some value.

http://www.pcgscoinfacts.com/Coin/Detail/6964

 

I fixed it for ya Mom........



Someone used a Brillo pad on that one........

 

Not counterfeit, or altered based on the look of it, but this coin would be difficult to sell if you buy it then try to sell it later, so I would say buy it if you really want to keep it.

 

I'm thinking I could flip it at an auction and still make a profit. I paid somewhere btwn $200 - $250. Even a G4 is getting double that.

Thx Green! Was it just too large of a file size?

 

Ehh... I do not like what I see.

 

Nah. You could have gone larger if you'd have wanted to.

 

I have to agree with this. Looks like possibly cleaned and toned to try to add some credibility.

 

Ok so I am going to be the 'ahole' again.

You do not have to worry about toning at all because this coin is a 100% fake.

Not only is it fake it is a terrible fake at that. I see fakes like this all the time on Ebay. The mint mark ( The 'CC') are horribly wrong. They are way too big, too thick, totally wrong spacing, wrong location, and just generally laughably awful.

 

Think it's fake Books ? I know you know the series well . I don't like some of the weaknesses or the date (shape of the numerals) . But I haven't compared it to a known coin .

 

Numerals in the date look too mushy and also the wrong thickness .

 

There were 2 obverse and 5 reverse dies used for 1870-CC. This coin, if real, uses Obverse 1, noted by the positions of the 1 and 7. It looks - near as I can tell from the images - pretty close to correct for the obverse.

The reverse, maybe not so much. Obverse 1 paired only with Reverses A, C & D, and Reverse A is the only one with a close-spaced mint mark like the reverse here. But, by comparison to 1-A examples at Heritage, I don't believe the mint mark orientation to be correct on this coin, and I'm tentatively calling it fake regardless of (rightful) concerns with the look of the obverse strike.

Sharper images would be required for any greater certainty. Mom, have a look here:

http://www.pcgscoinfacts.com/Coin/Detail/6964

Q. David describes the varieties quite nicely. Heritage has high-res attributed images in their archive to help you solidify your opinion in person, rather than depending on us.

 

Thank you Super Dave. That was a very thorough answer. I'll check out the link and other reverses. Thx again!

 

My pleasure. And don't forget that no opinion expressed online based on a single set of images can be taken as Gospel. Nobody's that good.

 

Need better pics to be sure. Harshly cleaned and then retoned. I can't see obvious signs it's a fake tho. Also not sure about the mm. Sometimes they take a Philadelphia mint and add the cc mm seen that a lot. I'd need better pics to be sure that wasn't the case but I'm leaning to it at least being a genuine seated dollar

 

I definitely wouldn't buy this coin from the pics shown , too many red flags as I 've never seen a coin with so much weakness in so many areas , from the motto In God We Trust , to the shield and the eagles eye . I'd say at least a 70 % chance it's fake . Hope I'm wrong . Someone also said they think the toning was done to throw off suspicion , I also think the harsh cleaning was for the same reason .

 

Dave I'll agree with pics like this one , but you can tell many fakes from just one decent pic of all 3 sides . I still lean at least 70% that this is a fake , but what does surprise me is the strong dentils on the reverse which they don't usually get right .